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 the “total income” of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Once the assessment is - 70 - reopened, the Assessing Authority can take note of the income disclosed in the earlier return, any undisclosed

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassess the total income, taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. For this purpose, the fetters

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

reassess the total income, taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. For this purpose, the fetters

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment

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 the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. After such reopening of the assessment

MR. JITENDRA VIRWANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

reassess the undisclosed foreign income and asset and determine the sum payable by the assessee. 27 (4) If any person

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

undisclosed income of the block period that was assessed, Section 153-A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess

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

income is based only on the disclosure expressly made by the petitioner - assessee itself of the gift of Wipro shares received by it and the very same information was readily available with the A.O. when the 35 original assessment order dated 28.06.2016 was passed by him. It is significant to note that at the time of passing the said order

PRL., COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. M/S I B C KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed as the

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

undisclosed income which would empower the Assessing Officer to upset or disturb a concluded assessment of the other person. Otherwise, a concluded assessment would be disturbed without there being any basis for doing so which is impermissible in law. Even in case of a searched person, the same reason would hold good as in case of any other person

M/S BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice H.G.Ramesh W.P.Nos.16525-16544/2012 (T-Res) Between: M/S Bhima Jewellers Represented By Its Managing Partner Sri B.Krishnan Aged About 64 Years No.45/5, Dickenson Road Bangalore-560 042 … Petitioner [By Sri R.V.Prasad, Advocate For M/S Vasan Associates, Advocates) And: 1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit-5.2) Dvo-5, Vtk-2, 5Th Floor Koramangala Bangalore-560 047 2. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes V.T.K.Builiding Kalidasa Road Gandhinagar Bangalore-560 009 … Respondents (By Sri T.K.Vedamurthy, Gp) These Wp’S Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Orders Of Re-Assessment Dated 8.5.2012 Passed Under Section 39(2) Of The Act & The Consequential Notices Of Demand, All Dated 8.5.2012 By Respondent-1 Pertaining To The Assessment Periods February 2009 & March 2009, April 2009 To March 2010 & April 2010

reassessment is based on the unaccounted sales as per the admissions made by one Shri B.Krishnan, who is one of the partners of the petitioner-firm and not on the basis of any books of accounts. 5. In the light of the above submissions, the only question that falls for my determination in these writ petitions is as to Whether