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. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.905/BANG/2013 & CO.NO.105/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND ETC., THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED

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

150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.905/BANG/2013 & CO.NO.105/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND ETC., THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED

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

150, DIAMOND DISTRICT, TOWER B, PENT HOUSE, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) ***** THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:25/04/2014 PASSED IN ITA.NO.905/BANG/2013 & CO.NO.105/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND ETC., THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

150/- for 25 flats) should be treated as bad debt when the sale is registered in the name of the purchasers (share holders relatives) in the year 2004, due to the fact that the share holders of the assessee company and the eight purchasers who are relatives of the share holders enter into family arrangement and partition (recognised u/s

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

150/- for 25 flats) should be treated as bad debt when the sale is registered in the name of the purchasers (share holders relatives) in the year 2004, due to the fact that the share holders of the assessee company and the eight purchasers who are relatives of the share holders enter into family arrangement and partition (recognised u/s

SHRI. SUMIR J. HINDUJA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1) Whether the Assessing Officer to justify action u/s 147 can travel beyond his recording u/s 148(2) and the material therein? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding that the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 3 of the Income