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:

147, for completing assessment u/s 153, etc; limitation is 37 provided for acts of assessee as well ie., due date for filing of returns u/ss 139(1)/(4)/(5); in Parashuram Pottery Works Col Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 at p.10, it is stated: “At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy

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

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

reassess was brought to the notice - 8 - of the Court, arguing that, on concluding the assessment under section 143[3] of the Act, with all the material facts available on record, the presumption u/s. 114[e] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be that the AO has looked into all the aspects of the matter made available

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA

D E R The petitioner has called in question the notice dated 28.3.2013 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short] as well as the order dated 12.03.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 152 of the Act and the consequential notice dated 6.2.2014 issued by respondent No.1

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

1) of sec.6 of Banking Regulation Act, Banks can carry business of dealing in stock, funds, shares, debentures, debenture stock, bonds obligations, securities - 10 - and investments of all kinds. So, the purchase and sale of Govt. securities was a part of regular banking business only. d) The various Govt. securities held by the assessee Bank was in the normal course

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

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

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

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

D THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.331 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD – 12(2), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS. (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. SHASTHA PHARMA LABORATORIES, NO.16/2, OVH ROAD, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT

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 MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

reassessment for A.Y.98-99 vide its 10 subsequent letter and the claim for set off of loss of A.Y.98-99 was based on its return as well as original intimation which had not been rectified. Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not see any justification for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). There is merit

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

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

1)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the 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

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

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

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

D G M E N T The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business as a developer/builder. It commenced a project known as ‘woodsvage’ at Nandidurga Road, Bangalore. It constructed 25 flats. The total consideration for sale of the flats was Rs.12,53,30,150/- In respect of the Assessment Year 2003-2004, the assessee filed