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

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

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner: Learned Counsel Dr. R.B. Krishna submitted that the impugned notice dated 11.02.2014 and the impugned order dated 1.7.2015, issued by the respondent are wholly without jurisdiction. It was submitted that the respondent has denied the fact of - 7 - reopening the assessment concluded under section 143[3] of the Act based

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

5. It is the contention of Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Advocate for the revenue that Tribunal erred in holding that assessing Officer sought to initiate the re-assessment proceedings by mere change of opinion, without considering the fact that the 7 expenditure related to onsite development of computer software and same had not been examined in the original assessment

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

11 of the CIT(A)’s order wherein the CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO in initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. 19 16. The ld. counsel for the assessee, in rejoinder, pointed out to Explanation 1 to section 147 of the Act, which reads as under:- “Explanation 1.— Production before the Assessing Officer of account books

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

11 of the CIT(A)’s order wherein the CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO in initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. 19 16. The ld. counsel for the assessee, in rejoinder, pointed out to Explanation 1 to section 147 of the Act, which reads as under:- “Explanation 1.— Production before the Assessing Officer of account books

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant placing reliance on, (1) ALA Firm v. CIT, reported in (1991) 189 ITR 285; (2) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561; and (3) TTK Prestige Ltd., v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru, (2018) 97 taxmann.com 112 - 6 - submitted that reopening

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

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing authority, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority confirmed the assessment made but for - 7 - statistical purpose the appeal was treated as dismissed, since despite the acceptance of one of the pleadings raised, the end result is the confirmation of the assessment order

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

5 total income under the original assessment order passed. However, it was noticed that though the assessment proceedings was initiated by issue of notice under Section 143(2), The Tribunal vide said order also knocked down the assessment proceedings completed under Section 144 read with Section 153D on similar ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer

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

5 under sub-section (1), and the amount of interest payable under sub-section (1A) of Section 201 of the Act was quantified. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Appellate Commissioner on 30.5.2008, holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was time barred. However, by subsequent order dated 30.9.2008 passed under Section

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 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