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:

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 is carved out in cases where a fresh assessment/re-assessment is contemplated; the provisions of section 153(5) and section 244A(1A) employ the expression "wholly

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

u/s 148 in your case for the AY 2009-10 is not based on a mere change of opinion 7 but is based on the fact an amount of Rs.216,89,00,773/- which was deferred in AY 2009-10 has not been offered in the subsequent assessment year. 3. Regarding deferment of revenue, the DRP in its order

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

u/s 10A. Consequent short levy of tax and surcharge works out to Rs.1,76,39,326/-. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the Ay 2003-04”. 14 As per Section 147 of the Act, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

14. On the facts as narrated above and on the basis of provisions of section 147 as well as proviso to section 147 of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended as follows:- a) Initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law because proviso to Sec.147 will apply in the present case and therefore the initiation of reassessment

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

14. On the facts as narrated above and on the basis of provisions of section 147 as well as proviso to section 147 of the Act, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended as follows:- a) Initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law because proviso to Sec.147 will apply in the present case and therefore the initiation of reassessment

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

u/s 80P of the Act in respect of profit from sale of securities is justified. In view of the above, the objection raised by the Audit my please dropped.” It appears, subsequently, the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 06.07.2009 by the assessing officer. 10. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelvinator

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA

u/s 143(3) of the Act inter alia accepting the conclusions of the TPO. It appears after lapse of close to six years from the end of relevant Assessment Year, by the impugned notice dated 28.3.2013 issued under Section 148 of the Act respondent No.1 initiated re-assessment proceedings for the subject Assessment Year on the ground that the income

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the assessee supporting the impugned order contended that ‘the assessment order was issued under Section 143(3) of - 11 - the Act. In the returns categorically it is mentioned that the assets and the liabilities of the firm were taken over by the assessee as a going concern, after the other partners retired

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years in question. The same was indicated in the below tabular form. 15 A.Y Total Transportation Expenses claimed (Rs.) Transport Expenses Disallowed

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant has claimed transportation expenses for the years in question. The same was indicated in a tabular form. 14 A.Y. Total Transportation Expenses claimed (Rs) Transport Expenses disallowed

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

u/s 148 for A.Y.2004-05.” (emphasis supplied) 10. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid reasons recorded for reopening the concluded assessment for the assessment year 2004-05, what we notice is that the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that further investigation was required for proceeding to commence for the assessment year 2004-05, and on such basis he opined

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S BHARAT HOTELS LIMITED

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

u/s 201 and 201(1A). However, this is without prejudice to our earlier finding that the order for the asst. years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are barred by limitation.” 7 Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue. Though the appeal has been admitted on the questions of law, as mentioned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s. 147 is bad in law without appreciating the fact that the department has not accepted the relied upon decision and the same has also been challenged before this Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ITA NO.244/2013? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in the business of conducting chits

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section [2] of section 148. Explanation 4. – For the removal of doubts

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section [2] of section 148. Explanation 4. – For the removal of doubts

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

147 deals with income escaping assessment. Chapter XXI deals with penalties imposable. 37 Section 271 deals with failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc., It reads as under:- “271. FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WITH NOTICES, CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under

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

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

u/s 10AA Profit of the undertaking as per computation statement 43,60,79,542 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 Add: Voluntary TP adjustment 36,90,62,637 Income from business of the undertaking after voluntary TP adjustment 80,51,42,179 7. The AO had denied