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:

11 section 153(5) of the Act, which makes a period of nine months availing to the AO. So contending, learned Panel Counsel for the Revenue seeks dismissal of Writ Petition. 8. Both the counsel for the Assessee and the Sr. Panel Counsel for the Revenue have filed their Written Submissions and have pressed into service a catena of decisions

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 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

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

11. The full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Usha International Ltd., reported in (2012) 348 ITR 485 , had considered the following substantial questions of law. "(i) What is meant by the term "change of opinion? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under Section 147

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

U/s 147 11. Section 147 of the Act empowers the assessing officer to assess or reassess such income which is chargeable

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

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

11 for non-compliance of conditions contemplated under Section 153C of the Act. If the finding of the Tribunal in the order against Miscellaneous Petition is to be presumed to be correct, then the finding recorded in the main order dated 18.10.2016 is incorrect. This would substantiate the inconsistent stand / reasoning of the 31 Tribunal. On all these premises counsel

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

11 for non-compliance of conditions contemplated under Section 153C of the Act. If the finding of the Tribunal in the order against Miscellaneous Petition is to be presumed to be correct, then the finding recorded in the main order dated 17.10.2016 is incorrect. This would substantiate the inconsistent stand / reasoning of the Tribunal. On all these premises counsel

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

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 made u/s 147 of the Act 1961 on 10.12.2007 for the Asst. year 2004-2005 was valid when the original Return of income involuntarily filed on 21.3.2007 remained undisposed of, when the proceedings u/s 147 were initiated on 27.9.2006? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

11-01-2013 and holding that the reopening 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

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

M/S MAHESH INVESTMENTS vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

u/s 234 A, B & C can be levied as if such an order is a regular assessment which alone attracts such levy of interest. 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that assessee on 13.09.1994 filed its return 3 of income as a registered firm for the Assessment Year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer

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

11. We have heard Sri. K.VS.Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue, Sri. K.P.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.J.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for M/s. King & Partridge as well as Sri. A.Shankar, learned counsel for the assessee and perused the material on record. We now consider the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue in seriatim along with the submissions