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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, is quoted hereunder for ready reference. “As requested by you, vide your letter cited in the above reference, I am hereby communicating the reasons for re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, in respect of Sri Kannikaprameswari Co- - 28 - op., Bank Ltd., Davanagere for the A.Y. 2004-05 as under

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

business income of the appellant for the assessment year in question of Rs.45,96,38,679/-. The assessed income included income from salary Rs.18,18,811/- and income from interest Rs.2,42,26,434/- of the appellant and of minor daughter Ms.G.Bramhani Rs.9,90,386/- and minor son Master G.Kireeti Rs.6,33,782/- clubbed had been done by the appellant

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment

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

business premises with the person searched. But the fact that it ipso facto could not face proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, unless there was undisclosed income on the part of the assessee detected in the search operation, was not correct. Also, it was not necessary that satisfaction should be recorded regarding the seized - 41 - articles found

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

business premises with the person searched. But the fact that it ipso facto could not face proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, unless there was undisclosed income on the part of the assessee detected in the search operation, was not correct. Also, it was not necessary that satisfaction should be recorded regarding the seized - 41 - articles found

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

business premises with the person searched. But the fact that it ipso facto could not face proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, unless there was undisclosed income on the part of the assessee detected in the search operation, was not correct. Also, it was not necessary that satisfaction should be recorded regarding the seized - 41 - articles found

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:

business of manufacture of computer software & providing IT enabled services, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 29.03.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the second respondent-DCIT having negatived its application dated 22.03.2019 filed u/s 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘1961 Act’) has denied additional 3% interest

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

business income while framing Date of Judgment 31-07-2018 I.T.A.No.58/2012 Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. vs. M/s. GMR Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 5/16 assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the AO not given any reason to deviate from the said view while issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Assuming there was some mistake

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or 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

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or 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

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

u/s 148 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? (3) Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to make additional claim of loss incurred of Rs.8,28,65,052/- in the re- assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12 (2

Bench: S.SUJATHA

business of distribution of market products in relation to diabetes care, growth disorders and homeostasis and providing administrative and co-ordination services to its group companies. 3. For the Assessment Year 2006-07, the petitioner filed returns of tax on 29.11.2006 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 11.9.2007. The case of the petitioner was selected

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

business of software development. For the assessment year 2003-04 return of income was filed on 31.10.2003 declaring income of ` 15,00,92,060/- after claiming deduction of ` 99,67,71,161/- under Section 10A of the Act. Assessment order came to be framed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2006. The Assessing Officer reduced the claim

SHRI. SUMIR J. HINDUJA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

147 are satisfied? (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any reliable and cogent material in the recording u/s 148(2) of the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings? (6) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the funds provided to the associate concerns by GIP Ltd as per the terms

KARNATAKA BANK LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

business income. Therefore, the first respondent sought to disallow an interest expense of a large sum of money. The above reassessment proceedings having been initiated on a mere change of opinion, according to the learned Senior Advocate, was not permissible under Section 147 of the Act. All the details regarding investment portfolio of the petitioner for the year in question

CORPORATION BANK vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

business income. Therefore, the first respondent sought to disallow an interest expense of a large sum of money. The above reassessment proceedings having been initiated on a mere change of opinion, according to the learned Senior Advocate, was not permissible under Section 147 of the Act. All the details 5 regarding investment portfolio of the petitioner for the year

CORPORATION BANK vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

business income. Therefore, the first respondent sought to disallow an interest expense of a large sum of money. The above reassessment proceedings having been initiated on a mere change of opinion, according to the learned Senior Advocate, was not permissible under Section 147 of the Act. All the details 5 regarding investment portfolio of the petitioner for the year