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

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

21 - mentioned in clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Income- tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss

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

5 in the reasons recorded by the AO relate to application of the provisions of Sec.45(2) of the Act. As we have already seen the Assessee held the Whitefield property as investment and converted the same as stock-in-trade of business. This fact has also been recorded by the AO in the order of assessment passed u/s.143

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

5 in the reasons recorded by the AO relate to application of the provisions of Sec.45(2) of the Act. As we have already seen the Assessee held the Whitefield property as investment and converted the same as stock-in-trade of business. This fact has also been recorded by the AO in the order of assessment passed u/s.143

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 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

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

5) ITA NO.322 / 2018 - PCIT VS. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., held that; “29. Section 153C provides that where an Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account documents seized or requisitioned belong or belongs to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A, then

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 of the Act on the basis

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

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

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

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

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

21 of the said letter, detailed workout of interest on borrowings for ‘Tower A’ is furnished. ‘Tower A’ had been let-out and the interest amount was paid during the previous year. Interest in respect of ‘Tower B’ had not been claimed as deduction. 26. On going through the letter dated 30/9/2006, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity

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

21 of the said letter, detailed workout of interest on borrowings for ‘Tower A’ is furnished. ‘Tower A’ had been let-out and the interest amount was paid during the previous year. Interest in respect of ‘Tower B’ had not been claimed as deduction. 26. On going through the letter dated 30/9/2006, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity

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

21 of the said letter, detailed workout of interest on borrowings for ‘Tower A’ is furnished. ‘Tower A’ had been let-out and the interest amount was paid during the previous year. Interest in respect of ‘Tower B’ had not been claimed as deduction. 26. On going through the letter dated 30/9/2006, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity