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 deals with re assessment orders. • Sub-section(3) deals with time-limit for making order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under section 254 or section 264, by virtue of which the original assessment is either set aside or cancelled. 23 • Sub-section (4) states that where a reference under section 92CA(1) is made during

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

147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment

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

23 - examined by the Assessing Officer, it will nevertheless be a case of change of opinion and the reassessment proceedings will be barred. We are conscious of the fact that the aforesaid observations have been made in the context of Section 147(b) with reference to the term ‘information’ and conceptually there is difference in scope and ambit of reopening

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

23. Learned standing counsel for the appellant, would also contend that the above issue has been considered by the Delhi High Court in the case of (2012) 20 taxmann.com214 Delhi SSP aviation Ltd vs. DCIT wherein at para-14 held as under:- “14. Now there can be a situation when during the search conducted on one person under Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

23. We therefore, by keeping in view the ratio laid down by the various Hon’ble Courts in the aforesaid referred to cases, are of the view that in the present case reopening u/s. 147 of the Act by the AO on the basis of change of opinion was not justified. xxx 30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, reopening

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

23 made. The date of search relevant for the present case is 25.10.2011 and Assessment Year 2011-12 relevant to the financial year in which search was conducted is excluded for the purpose of computing six assessment years in terms of section 153A(1)(b) of the Act. First proviso to Section 153A of the Act provides for assess

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

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 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

23. Third substantial question of law is with regard to the disallowance of interest of Rs.1,91,14,354/-. The Assessing Officer had held that the balance sheet did not - 28 - reflect any accrued interest and hence, the same could not be allowed as a deduction. The Appellate Commissioner had directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction on payment

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

23. Third substantial question of law is with regard to the disallowance of interest of Rs.1,91,14,354/-. The Assessing Officer had held that the balance sheet did not - 28 - reflect any accrued interest and hence, the same could not be allowed as a deduction. The Appellate Commissioner had directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction on payment

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

23. Third substantial question of law is with regard to the disallowance of interest of Rs.1,91,14,354/-. The Assessing Officer had held that the balance sheet did not - 28 - reflect any accrued interest and hence, the same could not be allowed as a deduction. The Appellate Commissioner had directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction on payment

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KOTARKI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,J.M.KHAZI

U/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 2.1.2018 in Writ Petition No.61671/2016 (T-IT) passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, NAGARATHNA J., delivered the following: -: 2 :- J U D G M E N T The Revenue has preferred this appeal being aggrieved

PR.COMMISSIONER vs. M/S ESTEEM CLASSIC

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

U/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 2.1.2018 in Writ Petition No.61671/2016 (T-IT) passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, NAGARATHNA J., delivered the following: -: 2 :- J U D G M E N T The Revenue has preferred this appeal being aggrieved