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

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

2. Re-opening 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

section 147 was not satisfied. Secondly, in absence of any satisfaction having been recorded by the Assessing Officer that the income has escaped by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all mater ial facts necessary for its assessment for the Assessment Year under consideration, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

section 147 was not satisfied. Secondly, in absence of any satisfaction having been recorded by the Assessing Officer that the income has escaped by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all mater ial facts necessary for its assessment for the Assessment Year under consideration, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147

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

2 to Section 10A. Actually profits from providing technical services abroad should be excluded while computing deduction u/s 10A. In the instant case the expenditure for providing technical services at 11.71% of the total expenditure and the profits from providing technical services is to be estimated at 11.71% of the total profits, which is eligible for deduction u/s 10A. Consequent

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

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

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

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

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 to tax as escaped assessment for any assessment year, if he has reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment. The proviso to Section 147 of the Act, however, provides that where an assessment under Section

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

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

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

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

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

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