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 NA 12 months from the end of FY in which notice under section 148 was served. From 1st April 2019, the above time limit has been reduced to 9 months. 20 153(3) To make fresh assessment pursuant to order u/s 254/263/264 setting aside or cancelling assessment received by the PCIT or CCIT or the orders passed

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

section 45(2) of the Act and therefore it cannot be said that there was any expression of opinion in the order originally passed u/s. 143(3). It was his submission that there cannot be any change of opinion in the given circumstances. 20. With regard to the contention of the ld. DR regarding change of opinion, ld. counsel

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

section 45(2) of the Act and therefore it cannot be said that there was any expression of opinion in the order originally passed u/s. 143(3). It was his submission that there cannot be any change of opinion in the given circumstances. 20. With regard to the contention of the ld. DR regarding change of opinion, ld. counsel

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

20 - records that the issue was raised and is decided in favour of the assesse. Reassessment proceedings in the said cases will be hit by principle of ― change of opinion. (3) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised and answered by the assessee in original assessment proceedings but thereafter the Assessing Officer does

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. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

20. A taxing statute indisputably is to be strictly construed. [See J. Srinivasa Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., 2006(13)SCALE 27 ]. It is, however, also well-settled that the machinery provisions for calculating the tax or the procedure for its calculation are to be construed by ordinary rule of construction. Whereas a liability has been imposed

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. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

20. A taxing statute indisputably is to be strictly construed. [See J. Srinivasa Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., 2006(13)SCALE 27 ]. It is, however, also well-settled that the machinery provisions for calculating the tax or the procedure for its calculation are to be construed by ordinary rule of construction. Whereas a liability has been imposed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

20 xxx 21. In the present case also, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, only after the audit party raised certain objections, therefore reopening was not valid in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to cases. As regards the initiation of the proceedings for the reassessment u/s. 147

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

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

u/s 148 for A.Y.2004-05.” (emphasis supplied) 10. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid reasons recorded for reopening the concluded assessment for the assessment year 2004-05, what we notice is that the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that further investigation was required for proceeding to commence for the assessment year 2004-05, and on such basis he opined

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 is engaged in the business of conducting chits

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

u/s. 263 is 31/03/2013. Tax effect involved is Rs.1,01,97,000/- 5 a]. if remedial action is taken, details such as section and date of NA - 16 - order demand raised D&CR No. date of collection, if any, appeal against the order etc., b]. if demand varies from the tax effect mentioned in the LAR detailed reasons thereof

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

u/s. 263 is 31/03/2013. Tax effect involved is Rs.1,01,64,058/- 5 a]. if remedial action is taken, details such as section and date of NA - 16 - order demand raised D&CR No. date of collection, if any, appeal against the order etc., b]. if demand varies from the tax effect mentioned in the LAR detailed reasons thereof

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

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not - 64 - been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A of the Act in pursuance of search